NRA isn't an "arms dealing" group. WE promote gun safety and protection of the family.
John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ricardo Aráoz Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:57 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? john harvey wrote: > I would blame them all. > So you would blame the arms dealers. That would suggest you are against the NRA. Is that so? > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Ricardo Aráoz > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:40 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? > > I think Evo Morales (elected president of Bolivia for the ignorant half > of the list) would passionately agree with this, he's probably > considering affiliation to the NRA. He reasons that if you consider that > guns don't kill people, that people kill people, then all of you would > agree that drugs don't kill people, the person who introduces the drug > into the body kills them (it would mostly be suicide). So why blame the > producer of coke leaves, or the chemist who obtains cocaine, or the poor > arms dealer... sorry, drug dealer who sells them. We should only blame > the person who uses or administers drugs (doctors beware!). > > > Michael Madigan wrote: >> If he hates the bearing of arms, he's really going to >> hate the anti-abortion amendment. >> >> >> >> >> --- Robert Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 1:23 PM, David Crooks wrote: >>>> >>>>> How can anyone prove that??? Did they have the >>> same thermometers 200 >>>>> years ago that are in use today??? There is no >>> way!!! >>>>>> Some global warming. >>>>> I agree. I was cold in Albany, NY 200 years ago >>> and guess what? >>>>> It is >>>>> still cold in Albany, NY. LOL! >>>> I love how some people only read half of >>> something. They see a term >>>> such as "global warming" and completely miss the >>> 'global' part of it. >>>> Sort of like the same brilliant minds who read the >>> 2nd Amendment as >>>> guaranteeing the unfettered right to keep and bear >>> arms, completely >>>> missing the "well-regulated militia" part. >>> Or how some people read the whole part of something, >>> entirely out of >>> context. >>> >>> The purpose of the 'well-regulated militia' was to >>> protect the people >>> from an oppressive government, and was not intended >>> to establish a >>> particular "well-regulated militia", as some seem >>> curiously to argue. >>> Rather, by making the right to keep and bear arms >>> universal to all >>> citizens in the Bill of Rights, and not just to some >>> special >>> "militia" class, this formulation allowed for the >>> people to self- >>> organize into "well-regulated" militia as needed to >>> defend themselves >>> from tyranny. In general, our founders were into >>> "self- >>> regulation" (particularly of the small-r >>> "republican" variety), not >>> nanny government. >>> >>> The enhancements to the federal power and >>> consolidation under a >>> single federal government under the Constitution was >>> an economic >>> necessity. Nevertheless, the founders still saw fit >>> to guarantee each >>> state in the union a "republican" form of >>> government, and each >>> citizen a right to keep and bear arms. They hardly >>> envisioned the >>> federal government confiscating guns from everyone >>> except the police >>> or army. Maybe one or two of them thought that was a >>> good idea (after >>> all, they did discuss the various alternatives, and >>> even my hero >>> Hamilton had a brain fart about re-establishing >>> monarchy), but the >>> consensus was to state explicitly a right to keep an >>> bear arms to >>> all, and the reason sited was not just so the >>> government could >>> regulate some once and future national guard or >>> whatever, but rather >>> because an oppressive government could only be >>> countered by a people >>> armed to defend themselves. >>> >>> Context Ed is just as important as the precise >>> wording of a phrase. >>> >>> - Bob >>> >>>> -- Ed Leafe >>>> -- http://leafe.com >>>> -- http://dabodev.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
